"Pudgil says there are security concerns involved, as well as the worry that someone who identifies him or herself as a blogger or tweeter might turn out to be an activist with an agenda who will show up at a news conference with the intention of embarrassing his boss.

Of couse, as with most things political, there's a bit more to the story.

Longtime city hall watchers know that Pudgil and the mayor's office are often accused of being less than forthcoming when it comes to handling requests for public information regarding all city offices, whether from the media or local citizenry.

Back in July 2009, the VoiceOfSandiego.Org, San Diego's non-profit news site, even mounted a long-running "Pudgil Watch" to monitor the press aide's repeated stonewalling of public records act requests.

Our own attempts over the years to obtain records and information from the mayor's office have been met with unreturned calls.

“Thanks for asking,” she wrote. “No need to block them. The info is in the public domain, so you have to expect anything you put out there can be used or quoted by any news media, just like our Web content.

"However, their seeing something on Twitter or a Web site that interests them does not automatically grant them right to interviews, and we should continue to refrain from talking to them.”

Comments

Aren't Laing and Pudgil just the epitome of intellect and democracy?
Not really: For them, it's purely a low-brow "them" and "us" approach.

The PudgilWatch by VoSD was a joke, given the access that all of the staff have to Sanders' spokespeople, and given the connections between VoSD ownership and the downtown ruling class.
Remember Sanders' former thug, Fred Sainz? He was treated so kindly in his departing interview by VoSD, in which author Washburn wrote "Sainz always returned your calls, and nearly always had an answer no matter the question."
And Sainz never lied, oh no. He just gave "wrong" information.
Can't wait to see Sanders go, and take all of his tools with him.

It is becoming almost axiomatic that the more "transparency" is proclaimed by any politician or in any organization, the more opaque it becomes. That comment, "We're very open and we're very transparent, but we're very thorough in checking out who we let have access to the mayor" is a typical bit of obfuscation. You cannot be open and transparent and yet have gatekeepers. Transparency means that all the business is conducted in the open, and there is no reason to control access if that is the case.

I'm close to proposing that the term "transparency" be officially banned by the news media, because it is the most meaningless term in current use, and that's saying a lot.